Court reserves judgment on CIF challenge to levy

The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on whether the Construction Industry Federation has the legal standing to challenge a…

The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on whether the Construction Industry Federation has the legal standing to challenge a new development levy introduced by Dublin City Council.

If the court finds the CIF has the locus standi required, it will hear at a later stage the federation's full appeal against the High Court's dismissal last March of the challenge to the council's development levy scheme.

A similar scheme has also been drafted by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council.

Under the Dublin City Council scheme, it is proposed that developers will pay a contribution of €11,500 on each house constructed and a commercial levy of €110 per square metre.

READ MORE

The new levy was introduced in the Planning and Development Act, 2000. It empowers planning authorities to draw up such schemes and to require developers to pay contributions as conditions of grants of planning permission.

Section 48 of the 2000 Act allows for contributions to be imposed for public infrastructure and facilities provided or to be provided by the planning authority in its area, whether or not such facilities are of benefit to the particular development concerned. There is no appeal to An Bord Pleanála if contributions are properly calculated, and there is no provision for repayment of contributions.

The legislation also allows a planning authority to impose special contribution for "specific exceptional costs not covered by the scheme", from which there is an appeal to An Bord Pleanála. Such contributions are repayable if the planning authority does not proceed with the proposed works or does not complete them within seven years.

In dismissing the CIF challenge in the High Court, Mr Justice Gilligan accepted that the federation had a right to bring the proceedings but rejected its contention that it was necessary for such schemes to specify the public infrastructure and facilities for which contributions were sought.

The federation had argued it was not enough merely to identify classes of infrastructure and facilities to be provided.

The judge said it was clear from Section 48 that the planning authority shall have regard to the actual estimated costs of providing the classes of public infrastructure and facilities to be provided.